Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
AG Sessions Sues California for Violating Federal Immigration Law – Finally!
Like most of you, I’ve been appalled at the state of California’s not only flouting, but condemning federal immigration law. I’m happy to say that Jeff Sessions is loaded for bear, and he is suing that state for their outrageous behavior and rejection of the rule of law. When I researched the topic to get up to date, the actions of the state of California were even more egregious than I had imagined.
California, along with other states, believes that protecting its illegal immigrants is more important than protecting its legitimate citizens:
There are about 300 state and local governments with laws, rules or policies that impede federal efforts to enforce immigration laws. But what exactly does that mean to the average American citizen? Since 2014, about 10,000 criminal aliens who were released because of sanctuary policies were arrested – again – for new crimes. That’s 10,000 preventable crimes. Sanctuary policies make us all less safe.
California has been especially aggressive about blocking federal efforts with three laws: the state prohibits private employers from aiding federal immigration officials by threatening fines; it prevents local agencies from informing federal authorities of release dates of illegal aliens; and it establishes a state-run inspection process of illegal aliens in federal detention facilities.
Most recently, AG Sessions called out Libby Schaff, the mayor of Oakland: “So here’s my message to Mayor Schaff. How dare you, how dare you needlessly endanger the lives of our law enforcement officers to promote a radical open borders agenda?” Tom Homan, acting director of ICE, has said that ICE failed to make 800 arrests that they might have executed if Mayor Schaff had not spoken out.
ICE will increase its presence in the state, and AG Sessions still hopes to cut funding to sanctuary cities that defy federal law enforcement.
In his speech to the California Peace Officers Association in San Francisco yesterday, AG Sessions reminded his audience of the three executive orders that were sent to him by the President: to back law enforcement; to reduce crime in America; and to dismantle transnational criminal gangs. AG Sessions concluded his remarks with the following:
California is using every power it has — and some it doesn’t — to frustrate federal law enforcement. So you can be sure I’m going to use every power I have to stop them.
We are going to fight these irrational, unfair, and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you and our federal officers. We are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America. We are fighting to have a lawful system of immigration that serves Americans. And we intend to win.
Of course, Governor Jerry Brown is furious at Sessions: “This is basically going to war against the state of California,” Brown said. “This is pure red meat for the base … the Trump administration is full of liars.”
I think the governor might finally realize that the federal government is serious about stopping the sanctuary city movement.
My questions are many: will the federal courts once again rule against the federal government as they did in Arizona? Will the federal government be allowed to withhold state funds as a penalty for breaking federal law? Will there be consequences for individuals who violate federal law in this manner?
Who’s running this country anyway?
Published in Law
She doesn’t have to address the facts, @cdor. She’s on the Left.
California is preempting US immigration policy: once someone is in California, nothing prevents them from heading anywhere else in the US. Unfortunately, it’s not unreasonable for California to think that this is OK. It’s a natural extension of years of deliberate bipartisan failure to enforce existing law. As usual, Obama was particularly destructive; Harris, who exemplifies the Democrat charge to the Left, is even more extreme than Obama.
California is drilling a hole in the lifeboat and claims it’s OK because it’s under California’s seat.
I wonder if a Constitutional amendment to expel California from the Union might pass.
Perfectly stated.
I agree 100% with your assessment of the problem. Unfortunately, I don’t think Sessions is pursuing the correct remedy. I would implement an effective e verify system with stiff penalties for employers who hire illegals. I would implement mandatory reporting for schools in order to receive federal education funding, hospitals in order to collect Medicare and Medicaid, and welfare offices for social program money. It’s also possible that if Congress passed mandatory reporting requirements for state and local law enforcement under certain circumstance – upon conviction for a criminal offense for example – that it might pass constitutional muster. Things can be done to apply substantial pressure on other governments and private sector entities to cooperate.
Of course, I think Jeff Sessions is a smart guy who employs an awful lot of other smart people. Why do I think I’m smarter than them? I don’t. The fact is that the real challenge to be overcome is not state and local resistance, but that the will of the federal government to solve the problem is cyclical and ranges from total disinterest to marginal concern. Even with the administration pushing the issue, Republicans in Congress only pay lip service to it. Few of them are committed to doing anything. Furthermore, everybody knows that as soon as the Democrats wield any power in Washington any efforts for increased federal enforcement that requires legislative cooperation are DoA. I think Sessions is grasping at straws searching for a way to enable aggressive and effective immigration enforcement over the will of Congress. I think he’s barking up the wrong tree, but I don’t begrudge him for the effort.
So when push comes to shove, don’t blame the sanctuaries for the illegal immigration problem. The feds, and Congress in particular, are the root cause. As much as I hate the sanctuaries, many in Washington don’t really want them to go away because they’re fantastic scapegoats for do-nothing elected officials. Immigration is federal problem. Blame the feds for not solving it.
It’s become pretty clear that no one is serious about working on immigration, including Republicans, who are acting more like the Left than ever before. The many years of delay in taking this issue seriously has brought us here. One could go back further, but Reagan made a mistake in trusting that a wall would be built. And all these years later, here we are. So Republicans (including Trump) want to keep everyone here who is illegal; I don’t think that was just a bargaining chip. And the Dems want to use the unsolved DACA issue to beat the Republicans (politically and physically, I think) in the mid-terms. Heaven help us if anyone could actually plan past this coming November.
And this is a state where many employers have showed a preference for hispanics. After all, on some level many employers know this group of people may not be here legally, even though they show some paperwork that might offset that concept. (Often forged, “borrowed” or stolen, but why should employers do vetting for jobs on site?) Illegally here, these workers complain less and overlook not being paid overtime.
We had several friends who worked at the local pear packing plant in bad economic FY’s of 2009 to 2011. Formerly they had been carpenters or other construction trades men. But those jobs were gone. So they worked a much harder job for lower pay. One friend, B, he was awesome at work & called into management’s offices at the end of the 2010 season. “We want you to know if there weren’t other considerations, you would have been named “employee of the year.” The considerations included that the latino foreman would disapprove a white guy getting the award and its $ 50. So they congratulated B, and gave the $ 50 award to employee number 2.
The following yr, B was told not to bother applying for work. (As the latino foreman didn’t want white workers on the premises.) But Schwartzenegger & Obama deported so many people that B received a second phone call urging him to apply.
This story is like the last sentence in the OP: whose running this company anyway. So much for integrity, fairness (the way we define it). I suppose the latino foreman wasn’t fired for being a jerk because the company would have been sued.
I’ve plugged this book (actually, one essay in it, Martin van Creveld’s War and Migration,) before but it’s germane to this discussion: Being successfully invaded leads to a change in rule and culture; so does extensive enough immigration:
What is especially difficult, I would guess, is that it’s almost impossible to notice it’s happening when you’re in the middle of it. And when you finally see what’s happened–it’s too late. Oh my.